Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[jonny1000]

So if a majority of the network's hash power (even a simple majority) were to begin to mine blocks with a size up to let's say 2MB, it's a no-brainer which Schelling point would win

There is another Schelling point that I feel you do not appreciate. To me the Schelling point that a hardfork cannot occur without strong consensus, is the most important point, more important than the 1MB limit, the longest chain or the 21M limit. This Shelling point is the existing rules, the status quo is often a very powerful Schelling point. If a simple economic majority can impose arbitrary changes on the system, I consider Bitcoin totally useless.

 

[VeritasSapere]

You are trying to capture the majority of the hashrate on your side, therefore there is only one winner and its a war in that sense. I am trying to make sure your attempt is defeated. I am prepared to take all necessary measures to ensure you are defeated, even if it means the price falls to zero.

By any means necessary to ensure I am defeated? Think about what you are saying here, the only means would be violence if you can not change my mind through this type of discourse. I think you should question why your ideology demands this from you, maybe it would be better to love the fork. That way we can be free and live in peace, that way you will be able to tolerate other peoples beliefs without feeling the need to defeat them in some sort of war.

The price will never fall to zero however I do imagine a crippled chain with a one megabyte forever limitation to not have much value compared to cryptocurrencies that do fulfill the true vision of Satoshi which included on chain scaling.

Stop spreading false, divisive and counterproductive rumors, which indicate Core is not doing on chain capacity increases.

The fact is that right now Bitcoin Unlimited and Classic can increase the on chain capacity of Bitcoin today, whereas Core has implemented zero on chain capacity increases throughout its entire history. Actions speak louder then words.

Well then we may have 1MB forever then, due to your irrational refusal to shift to 2MB with consensus. That is probably fine

We are finally on the same page now. If we followed your governance model of "extreme consensus" the result would inevitable be one megabyte forever. Good to see you finally admit to this, it has been one of the main points that I have been making here.

 

[cypherdoc]

The way you keep wanting us to determine consensus is deeply flawed. Especially because of the fact that you and your dipshits attempt to interfere with it every step of the way once you determine who your opposition is. like right here and now.

"So if a majority of the network's hash power (even a simple majority) were to begin to mine blocks with a size up to let's say 2MB, it's a no-brainer which Schelling point would win."

There is another Schelling point that I feel you do not appreciate. To me the Schelling point that a hardfrok cannot occur without strong consensus, is the most important point, more important than the 1MB limit, the longest chain or the 21M limit.

 

[cliff]

There is an important thing I think our camp has been misunderstanding or conflating, and I have a sense that it is a key confusion in the year-long impasse.

Satoshi wrote about two very different kinds of "voting" or "consensus" in the whitepaper:

• Nakamoto (chain-tip) consensus through PoW (consensus on a single chain; determines transaction ordering / the ledger state, given a certain set of block validity rules)
• Fork prediction market consensus (on protocol rules) through PoW (determines which set of block validity rules prevail in the event of controversy; now kind of busted or maybe even defunct due to mining specialization)

(Deleted most of the article to save space)

RE: Consensus Distinctions

This is a good insight. I like how it adds nuance and context to the discussion. More of that needs to be done all around probably.

RE: Prediction Markets

A prediction market might be an interesting idea. A fork-future could act as both an incentive and insurance policy for miners wanting mine a particular forked chain (i.e., miners can buy futures to hedge risk of some amount of loss should they end up on the wrong chain). The market itself would be a nice way to structure the interactions between the current set of market participants.

However, I'm not sure participating on a futures exchange - as a prediction market - is a reliable form of voting. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but its something to think about . . . I guess. Here's the tension I perceive: participation on a futures exchange would certainly communicate a measure of demand for X, but participation alone does not say who is sending the communication. That probably matters in some important way. As an example, think about these questions:

1. How would a futures market prevent manipulation by short-term speculators (doesn't self-identify as a "bitcoiner") and anti-bitcoin interests?
2. Does the presence of manipulation even matter? If so, how much?

You've really opened a complicated can of worms, Zingleback.

More [explicit] historical context is warranted. Clearly, the Bitcoin eco-system is different today than it was during Satoshi's time in a variety of ways. Consider:

1. Satoshi started the project without the benefit of a certain market - there was literally no demand for bitcoins before Satoshi started sending out emails about a Bitcoin P2P ecash paper (and, ultimately the Bitcoin thread on the cryptography listserv was shutdown as being too political).
2. The market that existed when Satoshi left the project was small in comparison to today's diverse, pretty-much-global market.
3. With little-to-no-market for bitcoins, the decision to mine during Satoshi's era was based on a different set of factors than the factors used by today's miners (although there probably are some "timeless" factors).
4. Decisions to attack the network during Satoshi's era were based on a different set of factors than the factors used by attackers today.
5. Deciding and executing on certain network functionality, security, etc. matters during Satoshi's era carried less economic risk than they do today.
6. There were far fewer ways to participate in Bitcoin AND crypto/digital/virtual currency during Satoshi's era.
7. Choice in the digital currency ecosystem during Satoshi's era was practically bi-polar (Bitcoin vs. Not Bitcoin) whereas today choice is multi-polar.

I could see a prediction market both stoking and extinguishing embers in a variety "proxy-war" - like scenarios. Again, not sure if any of this matters either way, and how much if so.

I think Satoshi probably saw blocksize limit-type battles as inevitable clash-of-civilizations-like disputes. The analogy is kinda interesting because there really is no winner in a clash of civilizations - the clash is too gradual (if not glacial) and things just kinda are. One side is basically co-opted or bred out of existence over time, maybe unnoticeably.

Maybe @jonny1000 has some wisdom with the win-big approach, especially when there's a movement for a fast consensus level change. Otherwise, prepare for the long-haul and/or try to become a Kore developer.

Consensus on how to get to consensus-level changes in the protocol should be a priority IMHO.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

"So if a majority of the network's hash power (even a simple majority) were to begin to mine blocks with a size up to let's say 2MB, it's a no-brainer which Schelling point would win."

There is another Schelling point that I feel you do not appreciate. To me the Schelling point that a hardfrok cannot occur without strong consensus, is the most important point, more important than the 1MB limit, the longest chain or the 21M limit.

Well, that's certainly a potential Schelling point, but, speaking descriptively, my read is that it's not a very powerful one. (And it's certainly far, far, FAR less powerful than the 21M limit!) Speaking normatively, I think it's a pretty misguided one. (Again, see my second linked comment.) And the idea that it should be MORE important than the 21M limit is pure insanity!!!

 

[jonny1000]

Well, that's certainly a potential Schelling point, but, speaking descriptively, my read is that it's not a very powerful one. (And it's certainly far, far, FAR less powerful than the 21M limit!)

The 21M limit was completely arbitrary. It could have been 42m or 8m or anything. Or as you guys like to to put it, 21m was never mentioned in the whitepaper. The reason 21m is important is because it is the status quo. 21m is an existing rule and something people expect, although there is no fundamental reason it is better than any other number. This is almost what a Schelling point is and also also what the status quo is, they are interelated concepts

 

[Roger_Murdock]

The 21M limit was completely arbitrary. It could have been 42m or 8m or anything. Or as you guys like to to put it, 21m was never mentioned in the whitepaper. The reason 21m is important is because it is the status quo. 21m is an existing rule and something people expect, although there is no fundamental reason it is better than any other number.

Sort of, but there's a very fundamental difference between the supply cap and the block size limit. On the one hand, "the 21M number for the supply cap was arbitrary, but preserving that status quo is crucial." On the other hand, "the 1-MB number for the block size limit was arbitrary, but not preserving that status quo is crucial." On a superficial level, that might sound like an inconsistency in my position. But again, the key difference is that the reliable scarcity of Bitcoin's money supply enhances its monetary usefulness (by allowing it to better serve the "store-of-value" function of money) whereas an artificially-constrained limit on transactional capacity undermines Bitcoin's monetary usefulness (by impairing its ability to serve the "medium-of-exchange" function of money). So it's really an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Related thoughts here:

• Two Approaches to Conceptualizing Bitcoin's Core Value Proposition

(By the way, for anyone who hasn't seen it, that post is one of my favorite things I've written about Bitcoin.)

 

[priestc]

You people arguing with johnny1000 have way more patience than I do. He just keeps saying the same thing over and over again, page after page.

 

[Richy_T]

Classic has lost.

Game's not over, sunshine.

As it happens, I don't believe that Classic is the answer we're looking for. But you seem to want to declare victory at the first down (or whatever the nomenclature is. American football is not my game)
[doublepost=1465278789][/doublepost]

I am not looking for sacrosant rules. I want to, for example, get rid of the 1MB limit.

But only if it can be done by avoiding anything that would actually get rid of the 1MB limit.

Why 95? Why not 99? Please show your workings.

 

[Zarathustra]

Stop spreading false, divisive and counterproductive rumors, which indicate Core is not doing on chain capacity increases.

Stop spreading the false, divisive and counterproductive BS of those totalitarian traitors of a libertarian project!

O disgust, disgust, disgust! You can collaborate with such people as much as you want, but those people are not our soulmates.

 

[bluemoon]

He just keeps saying the same thing over and over again, page after page.

It reflects Goebbels' fundamental principle of propaganda: it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.

And admit nothing, for as his master said: as soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.

Blockstream Core have long tried to ensure all debate is carried on in their terms: their topics, their questions, their language, their words. They denigrate, ignore, or stonewall everything else. Jonny is part of this.

They seek total control of Bitcoin, now and into the future. They are doing all in their power to achieve this.

Their "strong consensus" is institutionalised consensus, a stooge for centralised political control, the antithesis of Satoshi's concept of decentralised peer-to-peer relationships between individuals freely participating moment-to-moment on their own terms.

 

[jonny1000]

You people arguing with johnny1000 have way more patience than I do. He just keeps saying the same thing over and over again, page after page.

I think there is a perception among small blockers that the large blockers at too impatient. For example in the HK agreement it said the HF to 2MB may activate by July 2017. To me, if it had said July 2018 or 2019, it would have made no difference. I am patient, I am looking many decades ahead. In contrast some small blockers said July 2017 was "too late".1


Bitcoin is not a get rich quick scheme. To me patience, robustness, a long term vision and caution are key values in Bitcoin. I think these values are very important to many in the community, who regard impatience as a big negative. I think many get frustrated by the impatience of the large blockers. Please try to be patient.

[doublepost=1465280990][/doublepost]

Maybe @jonny1000 has some wisdom with the win-big approach, especially when there's a movement for a fast consensus level change. Otherwise, prepare for the long-haul and/or try to become a Kore developer.

Thank you, great to know we are slowly making progress.

The big-win approach is key. The existing consensus rules are very powerful and have a huge status quo advantage, built in by design. I think everyone here, including me, wants to overcome them. We need massive positive momentum to do this. We need a big-win, we need to be strong and decisive. Not act in the assumption that 25% will oppose us, that sends out a very weak signal and ensures a defeat.

Note 1: https://medium.com/@barmstrong/the-bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-proposal-too-little-too-late-e694f13f40b#.uit7w1tqo

 

[jonny1000]

Sort of, but there's a very fundamental difference between the supply cap and the block size limit. On the one hand, "the 21M number for the supply cap was arbitrary, but preserving that status quo is crucial." On the other hand, "the 1-MB number for the block size limit was arbitrary, but not preserving that status quo is crucial." On a superficial level, that might sound like an inconsistency in my position

I agree that the 21M cap part of the status quo is more powerful than the 1MB cap part of it, for a variety of reasons. But 1MB is still part of the status quo and I think it is very important not to underestimate how much of a powerful shelling point any part of the existing rules are. There is the game theory part of this and the classic shelling point reasons, but there are also special technical factors:

• The fact old nodes are slow to upgrade and that having the mass of lazy people on your side is a powerful force
• The fact that all the upgraded miners also regard the old rules as valid and will build on top of them, while the non upgraded miners will only mine on the chain with the existing rules. This gives the existing rules a huge asymmetric advantage
• The fear of being the first miner to break the old rules, with the typical "why can't somebody else do it" attitude
• The risk of breaking the chain into two and that the community will therefore not want to support the new rules unless they are very confident the new rules will score a very easy and resounding victory. If there is any significant doubt, they will chicken out.

All these factors add up and combined are very powerful. I think the XT/Classic people have failed to appreciate them, a key strategic error. To overcome the status quo we must be very strong, powerful, united, decisive and ruthless. Lets stop pissing about and do it!!

To repeat my self again, which I know is very frustrating to you guys. Once you realize the community will not let you have a narrow victory, you will win.

 

[Zarathustra]

"To repeat my self again, which I know is very frustrating to you guys. Once you realize the community will not let you have a narrow victory, you will win."

You can repeat your perverted consensus as much as you want. We are not stupid, and we don't have the desire to collaborate with the N.Korea Gang. That's your business, but not our's.

 

[Erdogan]

You people arguing with johnny1000 have way more patience than I do. He just keeps saying the same thing over and over again, page after page.

I appreciate the responses, because new entrants on the forum may be confused if his statements are not refuted.

 

[freetrader]

The big-win approach is key. The existing consensus rules are very powerful and have a huge status quo advantage, built in by design. I think everyone here, including me, wants to overcome them. We need massive positive momentum to do this. We need a big-win, we need to be strong and decisive. Not act in the assumption that 25% will oppose us, that sends out a very weak signal and ensures a defeat.

This is actually something I agree with.

Satoshi described how to achieve this big win. Put out code that forks at a given block height, give people enough time to make their mind up about it and let them vote by running it - or not.
The Nakamoto consensus rules will take care of the rest.

Funny how other coins manage to do this on a regular basis and still prosper. Maybe they are on to something.

屮 屮 屮​

I'll add one thought. I've never seen any other open source project where the incumbent resorts to such undemocratic, authoritarian and deceptive measures as the "leadership" of Bitcoin Core has over the last year or more (Blockstream steers clear of direct accusations by convenient use of independent contractors, or sending their officers to attend meetings as individuals, although their conflicts of interest are clear as day to everyone else).

If this were some other project, I probably wouldn't care less and just switch to another technology.

But it's Bitcoin. So I'll fight tooth and nail until this goonish threat is either eliminated, or there is no more hope. I don't want to paint all Core contributors with the same brush, it just seems there are some among them who 'can't help being evil'.

Peace & love,

 

[jonny1000]

I've never seen any other open source project where...

Yes, Bitcoin is not like other projects that came before it, its unique. That is why we are all here, right? Bitcoin is the first distributed consensus system, which makes is very different compared to other open source projects.

 

[79b79aa8]

In the spirit of reminding ourselves of the fundamental points. To my mind, the crucial thing right now is not so much the near-term fate of the 1 MB limit. It is the diversification of development. Having a single implementation and development team, which is subject to capture, is a failure point for Bitcoin.

 

[Bagatell]

@jonny1000 You're mistaking what with how. Bitcoin is P2P electronic cash that has a distributed consensus system as one of it's features.

edit

Inverting the means with the ends?

 

[Zarathustra]

In the spirit of reminding ourselves of the fundamental points. To my mind, the crucial thing right now is not so much the near-term fate of the 1 MB limit. It is the diversification of development. Having a single implementation and development team, which is subject to capture, is a failure point for Bitcoin.

No no, that's a sign of strong consensus. LOL